I play Warthunder to play a fighter jet. I have no interest in fighting AI that are at the same place every time. I have no interest in killing an attacker that is a free kill beelining for AI. I have no interest in playing a game that offers me points simply because I chose a loadout and someone else decided to be a burden on the opposite team. I want to play my plane to its strength against someone who can give me a challenge.
PvE and PvP should be entirely separated in warthunder. I play a PvP game to do PvP. Some players wants to do PvE. Fine with me, but we shouldn’t be in the same match. The fundamental problem is that some people enjoy an extremely passive playstyle of “going straight to press spacebar over an immobile, undefended ground target”, while the majority of players want to use their warmachine to lodge a missile up the other’s engine.
One option that is viable, is EC. It gives long term objective on the map so air supremacy is as important as killing targets, and those target range from AI planes to ground target, to achieving air supremacy over a cadran of the map.
I fundamentally disagree with any gameplay change that would force the players into chasing attackers as the priority target. It’s incredibly boring for everyone involved. I’m an Old Guard by WT standard, I remember the B-17 chase over Berlin back in the day. Half the german team HAD to spawn in Me410 B6/R3 and beeline the enemy bombers or else the B-17 would instantly finish the match. It was boring, tedious, absolutely infuriating and forced one side to play one specific aircraft in an entire BR bracket to have a chance to win.
Because of the nature of the stock grind and the status quo, some PVE elements are bound to be combined with PVP no matter the mode.
The goal would be to make PVE meaningful. Others have mentioned this but War Thunder certainly does need to work on their AI for meaningful PVE content.
Some form of EC is probably the best solution to all of this and would allow a ton of the more modern jets to actually play their roles out properly.
Unfortunately all of War Thunder is designed around the grind and this grinding nature drastically hurts game play. Many people just play to feed an addiction so any mode that nerfs the grind, even in a small way, will be met with a lot of hate.
I really hope we get an EC mode soon for the upper tiers.
Big maps (so people can avoid PvP), no markers (so people can avoid PvP), AI/objectives carrying more weight, additional PvE objectives… yes, that’s exactly what this suggestion is. Just like every other EC-like concept that periodically floats around.
Air RB has also been my main mode for most of my many years in WT, only coming in second to Naval RB recently. I normally ignore petty and irrelevant statshaming, but misinformation is not acceptable.
I do like the idea of helicopters being usable in Air modes, I may actually play helis if they were usable there.
…And this still comes down to the fact that ARB is a PvP mode, not PvE. I play the game for PvP, and that should not be interrupted or decided by PvE players. Give them a separate gamemode.
lol, what? SM.92, AD-4, Do335, Me410, and AM-1 are all viable attackers in the A2A role, just to name a few. Not to mention bombers like the SB2C and B7A2.
As for the rest of the “food” attackers, that is a good thing, as they arent supposed to work in PvP A2A combat.
And the way we win in WT? Air superiority. It is the objective.
Not sure about that, nearly everything here is for shafting fighters and making PvE the main focus.
Doesnt have to be the main purpose for it to be good at it.
It isnt stupid. The team with players still alive has now established air superiority!
Making other types of aircraft usable is somehow making ARB into PvE? Can’t tell if you are stupid or trolling.
Never have I said I want markers removed.
This is what you want ARB to be, not what it is. If it were plain PvP there would be no bomb targets, no tickets and no AI of any kind.
How do you not realize that air superiority is still going to help towards winning because strike/bombers get to their objective?
Shafting fighters? By reducing furballs and making more modern weaponry usable? Most people who played the ARH test last dev server said they liked it, not because of ARHs but because player counts were reduced.
PvE is NOT the main focus in our suggestion. While it is the objective that ends the game, it cannot be done without fighters. And if no one in the match wants to bomb great, you just got yourself 45 minutes or whatever of pure PvP.
How do you not see that a large portion of the planes has no place in a gamemode like this?
Wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
I won’t be replying to you two any longer. If you do not see the problems I don’t think anyone can help you.
Attackers and bombers are perfectly usable in Air RB. “Usable” does not inherently mean “decides the match on their own”.
While I do have more time in fighters, I rather enjoy flying bombers, it’s very relaxing.
It’s literally one of the subsections of the opening post.
Simplifying something to an absurd degree is not, in fact, a counterargument.
We’re going in circles. I already explained why objectives exist in PvP settings (to nudge players towards encountering other players). Being a PvP setting does not mean it’s supposed to be objectiveless TDM, it simply means that the objectives serve the purpose of facilitating PvP encounters.
If you’re playing a bomber, your role isn’t “bomb targets”, it’s “bomb targets while trying to not get killed by enemy players”. The former is just a PvE farming game, the latter is proper PvP, as WT is intended to be.
But its not just my preference for there to be a shakeup. Most of the player base wants a shakeup. And frankly, how does giving bombers and attackers a role beyond being food hurt the game.
Why, especially when there’s already a lengthy thread with plenty of answers, would you expect to get a meaningful answer for a loaded, bad-faith question?
Im not claiming to speak for everyone. I’m simply reporting what i see and hear from a lot of players. Its called observation
Why, especially when there’s already a lengthy thread with plenty of answers, would you expect to get a meaningful answer for a loaded, bad-faith question?
Becuase the burden for explaining why air RB should not change to give bombers a role falls on YOU. Beyond farming. Becuase guess what? That already happens. And if we give bombers a role, fighters have a reason to focus on them, and the farming problem resolves itself
By forcing them to rely on the attackers to clear AI SAM and such, as was suggested earlier.
This is the most blatant lie i have ever seen.
Usable does not mean major influence on game outcome! And YES, this entire thread has a pretty strong focus on PvE!
Is this not why other gamemodes exist?
In no way is the current focus PvE. It should never be a game deciding factor. Stuff like bombing is not impactful on the game outcome, because that is what PvP is supposed to do, decide the game.
I see the problems, as i play this gamemode almost daily at this point. And they would be:
Inconsistent, inadequate spotting (which for some reason you want nerfed or even removed outright)
Team sizes, 16 vs 16 is too many, not just for toptier, but all other jet BRs as well. I like 16 vs 16 props though.
Major flaws in BR system and balancing. Deciding BR based on the players performance is pretty terrible, turns out.
Which results in… undertiered aircraft that bully everything in entire BR ranges (10.0 all aspect carriers, F-104A) and overtiered aircraft like the CL-13 Mk.4 being higher than a similar aircraft for no reason whatsoever, and aircraft like the A6M and Re.2005 fighting enemies way out of their capabilities.
I cant tell if you are admitting defeat or just strengthening your brick wall.
No offense man - but i am not sure if you know what you are talking about.
The SM 92 is indeed an excellent high alt and turnfighter - able to outturn most good turning aircraft (incl. Typhoons, XP-50 & Co.) - but why do you think it should be classified as a fighter???
The AD-2/4 plus the AM-1 can be flown effectively if their pilots avoid vertical dogfights - and all 410s are basically free kills in Air RB if their enemies avoid headons…
And the B7A2 is an excellent fighter - it has zero problems with Yak-3s and other agile and nimble fighters if they are not Spits, A6Ms or Ki-61s. And the B7A2 has a bombsight and was developed as multi-role bomber (torp/dive/horizontal) - whilst the SB2C has like the Brigand not even a bombsight.
As explained above - a bomber defines itself via a bombsight. Basically all JP carrier based bombers had the option to be used as level bombers - therefore they needed and had bomb sights - the USN had not these options, their hardware was either a dive- or a torpedo bomber…
They can be useful, just not able to end the game by killing bots.
No, we are not removing markers.
Ok, so a teams superior skill shouldnt win them the game? More of you just saying we need to emphasize PvE over PvP.
I mean, the point of fighters is to shoot down attackers and bombers, and you just want them to pound bots in peace?
How? Markers are good for the game. I get to pick my engagements and (most of the time) not have to deal with some guy i didnt see coming out of nowhere and killing me.
Id be happy removing airspawns from all bombers if you just want it gone from these.
No, it doesnt. It is a good way to increase situational awareness.
I seriously need to know how a skill based win condition is a stupid idea. You learn NOTHING and gain NOTHING from shooting at harmless bots.
Behold, the atrocious reality of no-markers gameplay. For emphasis, this is backlit by a sunset, and with a haze in the background, and at the start of the match when everyone is somewhere reasonably predictable. The pinnacle of ideal conditions.
And even here, at a mere ~6km (aka the edge of engagement range), everyone is still a pixel.
Cool. You know where the engagement is, and can clearly see the targets with the most energy. work your way down from there. All your complaints with no markers are answered for
